Citation Nr: 0009282
Decision Date: 04/06/00 Archive Date: 04/12/00
DOCKET NO. 98-17 670A ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan,
Puerto Rico
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for a left
forearm scar.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
N. W. Fabian, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active duty from January to March 1952 and
from January 1953 to December 1954. This matter comes to the
Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 1997
rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Regional Office (RO), in which the RO granted service
connection for a left forearm scar and rated the scar as
noncompensable. The veteran has perfected an appeal of the
assigned rating.
This case was previously before the Board in August 1999, at
which time it was remanded to the RO for additional
development. That development has been completed and the
case returned to the Board for consideration of the veteran's
appeal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All relevant evidence necessary for an informed decision
on the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO.
2. The left forearm scar is not poorly nourished, ulcerated,
or tender and painful on objective demonstration, nor does it
result in any functional limitation of the left upper
extremity.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for a compensable disability rating for the left
forearm scar are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West
1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7803-7805
(1999).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the veteran's appeal of the rating
assigned for the left forearm scar is well grounded within
the meaning of the statutes and judicial construction and
that VA has a duty, therefore, to assist him in the
development of the facts pertinent to the appeal.
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); see also Proscelle v. Derwinski,
2 Vet. App. 629, 632 (1992). The relevant evidence consists
of the reports of VA examinations in November 1997 and
September 1999 and the veteran's statements. The Board
concludes that all relevant data has been obtained for
determining the merits of the veteran's appeal and that VA
has fulfilled its obligation to assist him in the development
of the facts of his case.
Disability ratings are based on the average impairment of
earning capacity resulting from disability. The percentage
ratings for each diagnostic code, as set forth in the VA's
Schedule for Rating Disabilities, codified in 38 C.F.R. Part
4, represent the average impairment of earning capacity
resulting from disability. Generally, the degrees of
disability specified are considered adequate to compensate
for a loss of working time proportionate to the severity of
the disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. If the
minimum schedular evaluation requires residuals and the
schedule does not provide a no-percent evaluation, a no-
percent evaluation is assigned when the required residuals
are not shown. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31.
Diagnostic Code 7800 for disfiguring scars of the head, face,
and neck provides a 50 percent rating if there is complete or
exceptionally repugnant deformity of one side of the face, or
marked or repugnant bilateral disfigurement. A 30 percent
rating applies if the scarring is severe, especially if
producing a marked and unsightly deformity of eyelids, lips,
or auricles. A 10 percent rating is provided if the scarring
is moderately disfiguring, and the disorder is noncompensable
if slight. Diagnostic Code 7803 provides a 10 percent
evaluation if a superficial scar is poorly nourished with
repeated ulceration. Diagnostic Code 7804 provides a
10 percent evaluation for superficial scars that are tender
and painful on objective demonstration. Diagnostic Code 7805
for other scars indicates that other scars are to be
evaluated based on the limitation of function of the part
affected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7803,
7804 and 7805.
The veteran has appealed the disability rating initially
assigned with the grant of service connection in October
1997. Because he has appealed the initial rating, the Board
must consider the applicability of staged ratings covering
the time period in which his claim and appeal have been
pending. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999).
The evaluation of the level of disability is to be based on
review of the entire evidence of record and the application
of all pertinent regulations. See Schafrath v. Derwinski,
1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). Once the evidence is assembled, the
Secretary is responsible for determining whether the
preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. If so,
the claim is denied; if the evidence is in support of the
claim or is in equal balance, the claim is allowed. See
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).
The report of the veteran's examination on separation from
service in December 1954 shows that he had a well healed scar
on the lateral aspect of the left forearm. His remaining
service medical records are apparently not available.
In his May 1998 notice of disagreement and November 1998
substantive appeal the veteran stated that the scar had
caused him psychological damage and that it resulted in
functional limitation of the left hand. He has not reported
having received any treatment for the left arm since his
separation from service.
During the November 1997 VA medical examination the veteran
stated that the scar was incurred when he was stabbed by a
fellow soldier. The examiner stated that the scar was
located on the anterolateral aspect of the proximal third of
the left forearm.
The report of the September 1999 VA examination indicates
that the examiner carefully reviewed the claims file in
conjunction with the examination. During the examination the
veteran stated that he believed that people looked at him
strangely in social situations due to the scar, and that he
had occasional pain in the forearm. Examination showed an
oval scar on the anterolateral proximal third of the forearm
that was seven centimeters long and one and a half
centimeters wide. There was no adhesion, underlying tissue
loss, inflammation, edema, or keloid formation. The scar had
a normal texture and loss of color. The examiner found as a
result of the physical examination that the scar was
superficial, well nourished with no ulcerations, not tender
or painful on objective demonstration, and productive of no
limitation of function of the affected part, including any
limitation of function due to pain with use. The examiner
described the scar as mildly cosmetically disfiguring and
stated that the veteran did not suffer from any disorder,
such as a psychological disorder, secondary to the scar.
The Board finds that the criteria for a compensable
disability rating for the left forearm scar have not been met
at any time since the initiation of the veteran's claim.
Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 119. The scar is not located on
the head, face, or neck, and does not warrant a compensable
rating based on disfiguration. The medical evidence does not
show that the scar is poorly nourished or ulcerated, or
tender and painful on objective demonstration. Although the
veteran claimed that the scar caused functional limitation in
the right hand, the examiner found that the scar did not
result in any functional limitation of the left forearm or
hand. The Board finds, therefore, that the veteran's
assertions are not probative of functional disability. See
Madden v. Gober, 123 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the
Board is entitled to discount the weight, credibility, and
probity of evidence in the light of its relationship to other
items of evidence). The Board has determined, therefore,
that the requirements for a compensable rating are not met,
and that the preponderance of the evidence is against the
appeal to establish entitlement to a compensable disability
rating for the left forearm scar. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31.
ORDER
The appeal to establish entitlement to a compensable
disability rating for the left forearm scar is denied.
N. W. Fabian
Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals